Misch v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office

Background

David Misch, an inmate housed at Santa Rita County Jail, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that his allegations concerned kosher and halal meals prepared by Aramark Corporation. He alleged that the meals contained non-kosher or non-halal items and provided insufficient nutrition, and that Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Sheriff-elect Yesenia Sanchez had not addressed those issues.

The court’s September 6, 2023 screening order found a legally sufficient First Amendment claim against the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Aramark Corporation, and Yesenia Sanchez. It dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim with prejudice. It dismissed the equal-protection claim with leave to amend because the first amended complaint did not plausibly suggest discriminatory intent. The court gave Misch until October 3, 2023, to file a second amended complaint addressing those deficiencies. The opinion states that he did not meet that deadline.

Misch’s Requests

Misch asked the court to clarify an earlier order, clarify the dismissal of his appeal, and allow him to file a second amended complaint.

The court denied the request to clarify the earlier order because Misch did not identify what was unclear or what relief he sought. It denied the request concerning dismissal of his appeal because the appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not in the district court, and the district court could not provide legal advice about it.

The court denied without prejudice Misch’s request to file a second amended complaint. It found that he had not shown good cause for missing the deadline and had not attached a proposed complaint as required by Northern District of California Local Rule 10-1. The court stated that a renewed request should include both a showing of good cause and a proposed second amended complaint.

Defendants’ Requests

The defendants asked for leave to file an amended answer and for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion, meaning a motion intended to resolve the case or claims without a trial.

The court granted leave to file the amended answer because the defendants said they had identified an additional potential affirmative defense while investigating Misch’s allegations. The court found no evidence of undue delay, bad faith, or a delaying motive. It ordered the defendants to file the amended answer within seven days of the order.

The court also granted the extension of time to file the dispositive motion. The defendants had to file that motion by April 5, 2024. Misch’s opposition was due 28 days after the motion was filed, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after the opposition. The court stated that the motion would be submitted on the reply deadline and that no hearing would be held.

Disposition

The court denied Misch’s two clarification requests, denied without prejudice his request for leave to file a second amended complaint, and granted the defendants’ requests for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion and for leave to file an amended answer. The order terminated Docket Nos. 46 and 48.